English Translation of Report); Davis, S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage IUCN Evaluation of Nominations of Natural and Mixed Properties to the World Heritage List Report to the World Heritage Committee Twenty-fourth session 27 November-2 December 2000 - Cairns, Australia Prepared by IUCN – The World Conservation Union 6 October 2000 Cover photograph: The Drakensberg Park / Alternatively known as oKhahlamba Park (South Africa) Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................iii TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS......................................................................................... 1 A. Nominations of natural properties to the World Heritage List ...........................................................1 A.1. New nominations...................................................................................................................................1 Ischigualasto Provincial Park-Talampaya National Park (Argentina).....................................................3 Noel Kempff Mercado National Park (Bolivia)....................................................................................13 Jaú National Park (Brazil).....................................................................................................................23 The Pantanal Conservation Complex (Brazil).......................................................................................31 Kopacki rit (Croatia).............................................................................................................................39 Kinabalu Park (Sabah, Malaysia)..........................................................................................................49 Gunung Mulu National Park (Sarawak, Malaysia)................................................................................57 The Cape Floristic Region: Phase 1 (South Africa) .............................................................................67 Central Suriname Nature Reserve (Suriname) ......................................................................................77 A.2. Deferred nominations for which additional information has been received..................................84 The High Coast (Sweden) .....................................................................................................................87 A.3. Extension of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List .......................................................97 Plitvice Lakes Extension (Croatia)........................................................................................................99 Caves of the Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst (Hungary / Slovakia) Extension to include Dobšinská Ice Cave (Slovakia) ...........................................................................................................107 A.4. Renomination of properties on the Heritage List to include additional criteria.........................115 Ha Long Bay (Vietnam)......................................................................................................................117 B. Nominations of mixed properties to the World Heritage List..........................................................125 B.1. New nominations...............................................................................................................................125 Mt. Qingcheng and Dujiangyan Irrigation System (China).................................................................127 Curonian Spit (Lithuania / Russian Federation)..................................................................................137 Shey-Phoksudo National Park (Nepal) ...............................................................................................145 The Drakensberg Park / Alternatively known as oKhahlamba Park (South Africa)............................153 B.2. Deferred nominations for which additional information has been received................................162 The Greater Blue Mountains Area (Australia) ....................................................................................167 Isole Eolie (Aeolian Islands) (Italy)....................................................................................................183 COMMENTS ON CULTURAL NOMINATIONS ........................................................................ 201 C. Nominations of cultural properties to the World Heritage List ......................................................201 i C.1. New nominations...............................................................................................................................201 Södra Ölands Odlingslandskap (The Agricultural Landscape of Southern Öland) (Sweden) .............203 C.2. Deferred nominations for which additional information has been received................................211 Loire Valley (France)..........................................................................................................................213 ii THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION IUCN TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORTS 6 October 2000 1. INTRODUCTION This technical evaluation report of natural sites nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List has been conducted by the Programme on Protected Areas (PPA) of IUCN – The World Conservation Union. PPA co- ordinates IUCN's input to the World Heritage Convention. It also co-ordinates activities of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) which is the world's leading expert network of protected area managers and specialists. In carrying out its function under the World Heritage Convention IUCN has been guided by four principles: (i) the need to ensure the highest standards of quality control and institutional memory in relation to technical evaluation, monitoring and other associated activities; (ii) the need to increase the use of specialist networks of IUCN, especially WCPA, but also other relevant IUCN Commissions and specialist networks; (iii) the need to work in support of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and States Parties to examine how IUCN can creatively and effectively support the World Heritage Convention and individual sites as “flagships” for biodiversity conservation; and (iv) the need to increase the level of effective partnership between IUCN and the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM. Members of the expert network of WCPA carry out the majority of technical evaluation missions. This has allows for the involvement of regional natural heritage experts and broadens the capacity of IUCN with regard to its work under the World Heritage Convention. Reports from field missions are comprehensively reviewed by a working session of the IUCN World Heritage Operational Panel at IUCN Headquarters held from 3-7 April, 2000. PPA then prepares the technical evaluation reports for the June/July session of the Bureau. Any new information submitted by State Parties in response to requests by the June/July Bureau is reviewed by a second meeting of the IUCN World Heritage Operational Panel in September. PPA then prepares the final technical evaluation reports for the Committee which are outlined in this document. IUCN also has placed emphasis on providing input and support to ICOMOS in relation to cultural landscapes and other cultural nominations which have important natural values. IUCN recognises that nature and culture are strongly linked and that many natural World Heritage sites have important cultural values. The WCPA membership network now totals over 1300 protected area managers and specialists from 120 countries. This network has provided much of the basis for conducting the IUCN technical evaluations. In addition, the Protected Areas Programme has been able to call on experts from IUCN's other five Commissions (Environmental Law, Education and Communication, Ecosystem Management, and Environmental, Economic and Social Policy), from other specialist officers in the IUCN Secretariat, and from scientific contacts in universities and other international agencies. This highlights the considerable “added value” from investing in the use of the extensive networks of IUCN and partner institutions. World Heritage Committee 2000 - Introduction iii 2. FORMAT Each technical evaluation report presents a concise summary of the nomination, a comparison with other similar sites, a review of management and integrity issues and concludes with the assessment of the applicability of the criteria, and a clear recommendation to the World Heritage Committee. Standardised data sheets, prepared for each nomination by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), are available in a separate document. 3. SITES REVIEWED Some twenty-three reports have been prepared by IUCN in 2000. These comprised: •= Fifteen (15) natural sites nominations (including one renomination, two extensions to existing World Heritage sites and one deferred site for which additional information has been received). Two natural sites were withdrawn following the completion of the evaluation reports by IUCN and another site was withdrawn before an evaluation mission could be carried out; •= Six (6) mixed sites (including two deferred sites for which additional information has been received); and •= Two (2) cultural landscape nominations (including one deferred site for which additional information has been received). The specific files reviewed by IUCN are as follows: A. Nominations of natural properties to the World Heritage List A.1 New